Penryn benchmarks

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

intel has released some benchmarks showing penryn dual-core and penryn quad-cores compared to its existing 65 nm products. we don't have any non-intel numbers to go by at the present time. but what are the numbers? are they worthwhile? does penryn offer us anything substantial?

both penryns shown operated at 3.33ghz and had a 1.333ghz fsb. the dual-core penryns came with a 6 mb l2 cache, while the quad-core varieties sported a healthy 12 mb l2 cache. the performance numbers showed about a 20% increase over the highest-end existing core 2 product, the qx6800.

the penryns are listed as “pre-production 45 nm hi-k intel(tm) dual-/quad-core processor.” the “hi-k” part is interesting. we found out recently about the potential increases found in intel's hi-k processes (see our coverage). the reality is there's a 10x reduction in leakage, resulting in less power, greater performance, lower heat, and so much more in terms of architectural opportunities. it's quite a thing, and intel is already including generation 1 in these early penryns, per its own description. it makes me wonder how much higher would the 3.33ghz version go in this early, pre-production silicon?

3.33 ghz(3:05pm est wed apr 18 2007)i realize it's pre-production silicon – but it's kind of a shame that they couldn't give benchmarks using the same clock speed. 20% increase going from 2.9 to 3.33 is nearly a 14% increase in itself. – by go_quadcore

what is penryn?(3:34pm est wed apr 18 2007)penryn (and nehalem shortly after) is going to be the chip that further crushes amd into being a 3rd tier player. – by squirrelzipper

once again(4:00pm est wed apr 18 2007)once again, intel is seen to be the industry's absolute master of process technology. their process shrinks happen like clockwork, and they tend to be absolutely rock solid when they arrive. – by olmy

perhaps you should take all of this activity from intel as good news. it seems that they're taking the amd threat seriously. could it be that they know something that we don't know about amd's upcoming products?

much faster parts, that run much cooler, that cost much less, and seem to be proigressing down all those paths at a much quicker pace then ever before.

my big question is when are people going to start demanding the same kind of overachieving performance over at amd? all i here from that camp is a bunch of crap that sounds like whining, damage control, and maybe a few bogus lawsuits.

i'm a huge denver broncos fan and when they don't win, we let them know we're not happy and people get fired because of it (i.e our quarterback). we don't take it out on peyton manning (our arch-nemisis) for being the best qb in the nfl, we take it out on our guys for not winning anyway.

i'd suggest you amd fans do the same and then maybe you'd get some better results.

especially if you are going to be throwing around that “competition” word a lot, because this is how real competitors are supposed to act. – by ee92

ee(7:00pm est wed apr 18 2007)i agree with you !!! overall i do not support the lawsuit against intel. amd needs to stop suing and start working for thier money. – by alan

lol can't wait to see amd numbers..(9:26pm est wed apr 18 2007)think about this boys, here is a 12 mbyte, dual core x86 cpu with with a few hundred million 45nm highk-metal gate transistors. the design works and the 1st stepping is already showing ( in my estimate ) about 10-15% performance if you normalize for the clock capability.

come now, got a spanky new process you got to want to show the same architecture running faster. or whats the point, either you got a crappy technology or an unscalable architecture. looks like it can run faster, and also its faster at same clock. the detailed benchmarks will tell soon how much is that 12m cache and how much is the new architecture hooks, but there it is in a machine!

with more process and product tuning and the signifcant power scaling and performance increase with 45nm highk metal gate this baby should scale easily to 4 ghz. we already know the c2 can overclock great, with the superior performance and power savings of 45nm i expect some really fast penrym once intel gets around to some more tuning.

by the way has anyone seen a single barcelona demo, benchmark, screen shot. is it me but i'm really worried now that amd got nothing, lol. whats the point of hiding barcelona now that intel has shown their cards. if amd can't even come to beating c2 by 20% then amd is pretty much relgated to selling a native quadcore design for under 500 bucks. that is one huge die at 283mm^2. if it can't be sold at 1k and compete against penrym then amd is in trouble.. but we already know that, amd is in big trouble. they seem to know as they seem to squeal and cry a lot about unfair monopolistic behavior. why don't they shut the up and deliver the goods. i recalled when they delivered opertron there wasn't really anything to argue about amd kicked a$$ then and actuall was well on their way to m$ growth, profits.. but then hector took the eye off the ball. now look at amd's sorry state, crappy products, late technoogy, debt galore, and where the hell is barcelona. intel has responded to the amd challenge, is amd man enough or are they going to again hide behind their long history of blaming the other guy for their failures?

– by rocco

rocco(1:58am est thu apr 19 2007)i'm thinking that with all this quiet act that they have something pretty tasty up their sleeve otherwise they should tell people now 'cos people will only be disapointed with the comapny if they don't. they need the loyal fans not to be disapointed. – by a_brit

rocco(6:05am est thu apr 19 2007)not to pick sides with people in here but in this case, i have to agree with rocco. i do not think it is too great for amd. they keep telling us overand over again how they havethe core2 killer! well that is quite a bold and cocky arrogant thing to say! the infanmous boxing match was a joke. look how cocky amd was when winning. seems they make bad winners and bad loser. anyways, my point being here is by now , i think it woudl be in amd's best intrest to show something on thier processor front. we have also heard bold staements regardign thier r600. but the mor ei think about it, the more i wonder where those benchmarks are as well. again , we have nothing but words! – by alan

cool(6:12am est thu apr 19 2007)maybe one of these 2 core bad boys will be in the 24″ imac i am going to get this fall after leopard releases. the imacs are scheduled for a hardware update before then.have a great all – by regulas

reg(8:59am est thu apr 19 2007)i have a 24″ imac but the one you will be gettingwill be even nicer! but they are sweet. apple rocks. my next mission is to check out an apple store. i heard they have some in canada now. – by alan

i've heard that windows xp runs more smoothly on mac hardware than on most pc hardware.

– by rickgeek

rick(2:17pm est thu apr 19 2007)i have heard that also and it makes sense i feel as manydo apple hardware is suppior ! as far as me personally testing it i dont know. i will never run windows on a mac. i have a pc to run windows. – by alan

where is…?(7:57pm est thu apr 19 2007)where are a lot of things, actually. not just barcelona, but lima, sparta. i actually would like to see a die photo for lima or sparta.

again, don't know what's in their fab right now. that would make a great story break for sure. – by fdc